Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Cloud-based Real-time Probabilistic Remaining Useful Life (RUL) Estimation using the Sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) Method

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Parallel Sequential Monte Carlo run partly in the cloud cuts probabilistic RUL estimation for adhesive joints from 180 to 5 minutes while keeping uncertainty bands that match MCMC and the experimental failure.

desk verdict A useful, incremental demonstration of cloud-parallel SMC for RUL in adhesive joints, with real speedup numbers; the missing convergence diagnostics and in-sample validation are fixable, not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17824 v2 pith:NH5EY5PQ submitted 2024-11-26 cs.CE cs.DC

Karthik Reddy Lyathakula , Fuh-Gwo Yuan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CEcs.DC MSC 62F1565C0562N05
keywords remainingusefullifeSequentialMonteCarlosamplingBayesianinferenceuncertaintyquantificationadhesivelybondedjointscloudcomputingsurrogatemodelcondition-basedmaintenance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to show that probabilistic remaining useful life (RUL) estimation, normally too slow for field decisions because Bayesian uncertainty quantification requires thousands of runs of an expensive predictive model, can be made near-real-time. The move is to replace the inherently serial Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampler with a Sequential Monte Carlo sampler, then dispatch the sampler's computationally heavy mutation step to parallel cloud machines. Demonstrated on fatigue cracks in adhesively bonded joints, the approach reproduces the MCMC parameter posteriors and 95% predictive intervals, delivers RUL estimates close to the experimental value, and cuts the uncertainty-quantification time from 180 minutes to 5 minutes, a reported 35-fold speedup. If the result holds, condition-based maintenance could act on uncertainty-aware life predictions within minutes of receiving inspection data rather than after hours of simulation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Sequential Monte Carlo sampler with a temperature bridge between prior and posterior: $N$ weighted particles are moved through tempered distributions controlled by $\varphi$, which starts at 0 and advances adaptively to 1 by optimizing the effective sample size, and at each step the particles are mutated with $n_{\mathrm{MCMC}}=5$ Metropolis moves. The mutation step is the part that scales, because each particle's MCMC kernel and its predictive-model evaluations are independent, and since predictive-model evaluations account for roughly 99% of SMC runtime, moving the mutations to cloud machines through multithreaded API calls is what converts hours into minutes. The predictive model being evaluated is the hybrid FDG simulator, an ANN surrogate that returns finite-element-grade strain fields at about three orders of magnitude lower cost and feeds a physics-based cohesive-zone fatigue law. The paper compares two cloud deployments: vectorized simulator evaluations on the cloud, with a peak 14x speedup, versus whole mutation kernels on the cloud, with a peak 35x speedup, showing that fewer, larger API calls beat many small ones.

What would settle it

Rerun the same SMC-cloud pipeline with the full finite-element cohesive-zone model as the predictive model instead of the ANN surrogate: if the 95% RUL interval no longer contains the experimental failure cycle, the accuracy claim rests on the surrogate rather than on the SMC-cloud machinery. A cheaper check is to rerun SMC with 10,000 particles and more mutations per temperature step and compare the parameter posteriors and RUL intervals with the 1000-particle, five-mutation run; material divergence would show that the five-minute result is not a converged posterior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that three ingredients together make real-time probabilistic RUL practical: a hybrid fatigue damage growth simulator, in which an artificial neural network replaces the expensive finite-element strain calculation inside a physics-based cohesive-zone fatigue damage law; a Sequential Monte Carlo sampler that moves weighted particles from the prior to the posterior through a sequence of tempered distributions; and cloud execution of the parallel mutation step, where each particle's MCMC moves and model evaluations are independent. With 1000 particles, five mutations per temperature step, and adaptive temperature increments chosen by optimizing the effective sample size, the SMC sampler produces pairwise posterior plots with trends and means similar to those from a serial MCMC run (50,000 samples, 20,000 burn-in, thinned to 6,000), and the resulting 95% crack-propagation and RUL intervals overlap the MCMC intervals and stay close to the experimental failure cycle. On the computation side, running whole mutation kernels on the cloud with 64 threads and 16 vectorized simulations per thread gives a 35x speedup over on-premises MCMC, five minutes versus 180 minutes, while the cheaper strategy of vectorizing only the simulator evaluations tops out at 14x, a gap the paper attributes to the larger number of cloud API calls.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ANN-based fatigue damage simulator is a faithful and fast stand-in for the full finite-element cohesive-zone model, since every likelihood evaluation, posterior sample, and RUL interval inherits the surrogate's accuracy, which the paper takes from earlier work rather than re-validating here; a second silent premise is that 1000 particles with five mutations per step give a converged SMC posterior, since no convergence diagnostics are reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Probabilistic RUL with quantified uncertainty becomes available within a maintenance decision's time scale: five minutes per posterior update instead of three hours.
  • The recipe transfers to any prognostics setting with a fast physics surrogate and a likelihood that dominates runtime, not only adhesively bonded joints.
  • Vectorized SMC speedup plateaus at about 64 vectorized simulations, so a specific resource configuration exists beyond which additional cloud parallelism stops paying.
  • Running whole mutation kernels on the cloud beats vectorizing only the simulator, because fewer API calls mean less communication overhead; the 35x figure is tied to that architectural choice.
  • Because the SMC and MCMC predictive intervals overlap and both sit close to the experimental RUL, the parallel sampler can replace the serial one in this case study without a visible accuracy trade-off.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The on-premises-serial/cloud-parallel split is a general template for Bayesian inverse problems with expensive likelihoods; battery degradation, corrosion, and composite delamination prognostics are natural next testbeds.
  • The reported timings depend on one laptop-class local machine, one cloud instance type, and one network path, so the 35x figure should be read as a scalability demonstration rather than a portable benchmark; a fair comparison would report cost per posterior sample, not only wall-clock time.
  • A stress test the paper does not run is to feed the SMC posterior into the original finite-element model instead of the surrogate and check whether the 95% RUL interval still contains the experimental failure cycle, which would separate surrogate fidelity from sampler performance.
  • The plateau near 64 vectorized simulations hints that the bottleneck is latency rather than compute, which suggests a low-latency on-premises cluster or edge hardware might reach comparable speedups without cloud egress costs; the cloud-versus-local choice is an economic question the paper leaves open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a cloud-based framework for probabilistic remaining useful life (RUL) estimation in adhesively bonded joints, using a sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) sampler in place of MCMC to speed up Bayesian calibration of a hybrid fatigue damage growth simulator. The authors compare MCMC- and SMC-derived posterior parameter distributions for three parameters (log10 α, β, σ), propagate the samples through the FDG simulator to obtain crack-growth predictive intervals and RUL box plots, and compare the SMC results with MCMC results and with the experimental failure cycle. They then demonstrate cloud parallelization of the SMC mutation step, reporting a speedup from 180 minutes (MCMC on-premises desktop) to 5 minutes (SMC with cloud vectorization/multithreading), with a maximum observed speedup of 35×. The central claim is that SMC plus cloud computing enables near-real-time probabilistic RUL estimation while producing uncertainty intervals comparable to MCMC.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the framework would be a useful engineering contribution: it combines established components (hybrid ANN/physics FDG simulator, SMC sampling, cloud multithreading) into a prognostics workflow and provides a concrete demonstration on mixed-mode flexural adhesive joints. The direct comparison of SMC- and MCMC-generated posterior distributions is a reasonable sanity check, and the empirical wall-clock speedup measurements are the kind of evidence practitioners need. However, the paper currently omits convergence diagnostics for the SMC sampler, validates RUL against the same experimental data used for calibration, and reports a speedup comparison that mixes algorithmic parallel speedup with additional cloud resources. These gaps leave the quantitative headline ('5 minutes, 35× faster') not fully supported, even though the overall approach is plausible and buildable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The SMC sampler is configured with N=1000 particles and nMCMC=5 mutations per tempering step, but no convergence diagnostics are reported: no effective sample size (ESS) trajectory, no R-hat values, no assessment of particle degeneracy, and no sensitivity analysis with respect to N or nMCMC. The only evidence of convergence is the qualitative visual overlap of the pairwise plots in Figure 8. Without such diagnostics, the claim that Figure 9's intervals are true posterior predictive intervals is not established; an unconverged SMC approximation could agree with an unconverged MCMC chain. Please add quantitative convergence diagnostics and a small sensitivity study (e.g., N=500, 1000, 2000; nMCMC=1, 5, 10).
  2. [Section 3.1, Figure 9] The probabilistic RUL is 'validated' by comparing it with the experimental failure cycle, but the posterior distribution was calibrated using the full experimental crack-length history via the likelihood in Eqs. (1)-(4). The match in Figure 9 is therefore a posterior predictive check, not an independent forecast, and the closeness to the experimental RUL is partly by construction. Please either use a training/test split of the crack-length data, predict RUL from an earlier cut-off cycle and compare against the remaining data, or validate on a separate load case.
  3. [Section 3.2] The reported 35× speedup compares 180 minutes of MCMC on a 12-core on-premises desktop with 5 minutes of SMC using 64 cloud threads and vectorized mutations (Figure 11b). This confounds algorithmic parallel speedup with additional compute resources: adding 64 cloud cores to a 12-core baseline can account for a large fraction of the observed gain. Please report per-core or equal-resource wall-clock times, separating total core-seconds used, communication/API overhead, and the additional cost of cloud resources, so that the algorithmic contribution of SMC itself can be assessed.
  4. [Sections 2.1 and 3.1] The FDG simulator is described as having been developed and validated in earlier references [13,20], but the present manuscript provides no independent verification of surrogate accuracy for the specific MMF joint and load case used here. All subsequent uncertainty intervals and RUL comparisons inherit any surrogate bias, so a brief validation summary (e.g., surrogate vs. FE or experimental crack-length fit on holdout data) is needed to make the accuracy claims self-contained.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The text states that N=1000 particles are used for SMC, while Figure 9 and Section 3.2 report 1024 particles; please reconcile this inconsistency.
  2. [Section 3.1] The text says 'thining is conducted' and 'constructued'; please correct these typographical errors.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] Minor typos include 'increase s confidence' in the abstract, 'floows' in Section 1, and 'structes' in Section 2.1; these should be corrected in a final pass.
  4. [References] Reference [33] contains a typographical artifact in the page range ('114`6-1158'); please verify the correct page numbers.
  5. [Section 2.2.2 / Figure 5] The description of the adaptive ESS-based temperature schedule would be clearer if the exact ESS threshold and the proposal adaptation procedure were stated, as these settings affect reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed RUL accuracy is an in-sample posterior predictive check: the same experimental crack-length history that defines the 'true RUL' is used to calibrate the posterior, so Figure 9's agreement is not an independent forecast.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1, 'Remaining Useful Life (RUL) Estimation' (Figure 9 and preceding calibration text)]
    "The experimental damage propagation data in the adhesively bonded joint is used for quantifying uncertainty in the model parameters of the FDG simulator. ... Further, the estimated RUL by the SMC method is close to the true RUL and similar to the MCMC method."

    The likelihood in Eqs. (1)-(4) is evaluated over all experimental crack-length data (k=1..n), and the posterior is conditioned on that entire trajectory. The 'true RUL' is the cycle at which the same experimental crack length reaches the 20 mm failure threshold. Therefore the RUL intervals in Figure 9 are compared with a quantity that was already an input to the calibration: the posterior is fit to the full crack-growth history, and the failure cycle is a functional of that history. The agreement with the experimental value is a posterior predictive check of fitting performance, not an out-of-sample validation of predictive skill. The SMC-MCMC overlap is a valid sampler-consistency check, but it does not make the experimental comparison an independent test.

full rationale

The paper's genuinely non-circular contributions are the SMC parallelization on cloud resources and the speedup measurement: the 180-minute MCMC baseline versus 5-minute cloud SMC is a computational claim, not a statistical tautology. The surrogate FDG simulator is cited to prior same-author work [13,20], but that is a published external validation and is not itself the present paper's derived result. The central circularity is confined to the accuracy claim: the posterior is calibrated on the full experimental crack-length record and then 'validated' against the failure cycle of that same record. No train/test split, data cutoff, or forward-prediction protocol is described; the RUL is therefore a fitted quantity rather than a prediction. The absence of SMC convergence diagnostics (ESS, R-hat, particle degeneracy) is a correctness risk, not a circularity, and is not scored here. Overall score 6: one central predictive claim reduces to an in-sample fit, while the speedup and MCMC-SMC consistency claims retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All model parameters (alpha, beta, sigma) are inferred from the same experimental crack-length data used to validate RUL, so accuracy claims are partially circular. The surrogate model and SMC hyperparameters are inherited from prior work and not independently validated here.

free parameters (6)
  • Fatigue damage growth parameter alpha (log10 coordinate) = Not reported; inferred via MCMC/SMC
    Inferred from experimental crack growth data; drives the damage evolution law.
  • Fatigue damage growth exponent beta = Not reported
    Inferred from experimental data; appears in the damage evolution law.
  • Error standard deviation sigma = Not reported
    Inferred from residuals; defines the likelihood in Eq. (3).
  • SMC particle count N = 1000 (Section 3.1), 1024 (Figure 9)
    Chosen by authors; no convergence study or sensitivity analysis provided.
  • SMC mutations per step nMCMC = 5
    Chosen for the SMC sampler; no sensitivity analysis or justification.
  • MCMC burn-in and thinning = 20,000 burn-in, thinning every 5th sample
    Chosen post hoc; typical but not justified with convergence diagnostics.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Bayes theorem and likelihood model with iid normal errors (Eqs. 1-3)
    Basis for posterior inference in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption Hybrid FDG simulator accurately mimics FEA with less than 1% error and three-orders-of-magnitude speedup
    Stated in Section 3.1 and references [13,20]; not revalidated in this paper.
  • domain assumption Cohesive zone model with bilinear traction-separation law and fatigue damage evolution law
    Physics basis of the FDG simulator, cited from prior work without derivation.
  • domain assumption Experimental data from a single MMF joint under a specific fatigue spectrum is representative
    Single test case; no replication or multi-case validation included.
  • ad hoc to paper SMC with N=1000 and nMCMC=5 converges to the posterior
    No convergence diagnostics (ESS, R-hat, trace plots) or sensitivity analysis are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Cloud-based Real-time Probabilistic Remaining Useful Life (RUL) Estimation using the Sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) Method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NH5EY5PQ

@misc{pith2026241117824,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Cloud-based Real-time Probabilistic Remaining Useful Life (RUL) Estimation using the Sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) Method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NH5EY5PQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17824}
}
read the original abstract

The remaining useful life (RUL) estimation is an important metric that helps in condition-based maintenance. Damage data obtained from the diagnostics techniques are often noisy and the RUL estimated from the data is less reliable. Estimating the probabilistic RUL by quantifying the uncertainty in the predictive model parameters using the noisy data increases confidence in the predicted values. Uncertainty quantification methods generate statistical samples for the model parameters, that represent the uncertainty, by evaluating the predictive model several times. The computational time for solving a physics-based predictive model is significant, which makes the statistical techniques to be computationally expensive. It is essential to reduce the computational time to estimate the RUL in a feasible time. In this work, real-time probabilistic RUL estimation is demonstrated in adhesively bonded joints using the Sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) sampling method and cloud-based computations. The SMC sampling method is an alternative to traditional MCMC methods, which enables generating the statistical parameter samples in parallel. The parallel computational capabilities of the SMC methods are exploited by running the SMC simulation on multiple cloud calls. This approach is demonstrated by estimating fatigue RUL in the adhesively bonded joint. The accuracy of probabilistic RUL estimated by SMC is validated by comparing it with RUL estimated by the MCMC and the experimental values. The SMC simulation is run on the cloud and the computational speedup of the SMC is demonstrated.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Statistical Design of Thermal Protection System Using Physics-Informed Neural Network

    cs.CE 2025-01 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    PINN plus SMC can sample thermal protection material parameters that meet back-temperature reliability constraints, with reported speedups of about 175x over serial MCMC.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Fatigue reliability analysis and assessment of offshore wind turbine blade adhesive bonding under the coupling effects of multiple environmental stresses,

    Li, Y., Liu, Z., He, Z., "Fatigue reliability analysis and assessment of offshore wind turbine blade adhesive bonding under the coupling effects of multiple environmental stresses," Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2023, pp. 109426

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Numerical analysis of the dynamic behaviour of adhesive joints: A review,

    Ramalho, L., Sánchez -Arce, I.J., Gonçalves, D.C., "Numerical analysis of the dynamic behaviour of adhesive joints: A review," International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 2022, pp. 103219

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    An updated review of adhesively bonded joints in composite materials,

    Budhe, S., Banea, M.D., De Barros, S., "An updated review of adhesively bonded joints in composite materials," International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, Vol. 72, 2017, pp. 30-42

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Review, analysis and synthesis of prognostic - based decision support methods for condition based maintenance,

    Bousdekis, A., Magoutas, B., Apostolou, D., "Review, analysis and synthesis of prognostic - based decision support methods for condition based maintenance," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 29, 2018, pp. 1303-1316

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Condition -based maintenance —An extensive literature review,

    Quatrini, E., Costantino, F., Di Gravio, G., "Condition -based maintenance —An extensive literature review," Machines, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020, pp. 31

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Current status of machine prognostics in condition-based maintenance: a review,

    Peng, Y., Dong, M., and Zuo, M.J., "Current status of machine prognostics in condition-based maintenance: a review," The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2010, pp. 297-313

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    A proactive condition -based maintenance strategy with both perfect and imperfect maintenance actions,

    Do, P., Voisin, A., Levrat, E., "A proactive condition -based maintenance strategy with both perfect and imperfect maintenance actions," Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 133, 2015, pp. 22-32

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Structural health monitoring (SHM) in aerospace structures,

    Yuan, F.G., "Structural health monitoring (SHM) in aerospace structures," Woodhead Publishing, 2016,

    work page 2016

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Probabilistic fatigue damage prognosis using surrogate models trained via three -dimensional finite element analysis,

    Leser, P.E., Hochhalter, J.D., Warner, J.E., "Probabilistic fatigue damage prognosis using surrogate models trained via three -dimensional finite element analysis," Structural Health Monitoring, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2017, pp. 291-308

    2017

  2. [10]

    Fatigue Damage Diagnostics –Prognostics Framework for Remaining Life Estimation in Adhesive Joints,

    Reddy Lyathakula, K., and Yuan, F.G., "Fatigue Damage Diagnostics –Prognostics Framework for Remaining Life Estimation in Adhesive Joints," AIAA Journal, 2022, pp. 1-19

    2022

  3. [11]

    Probabilistic methods for risk assessment of airframe digital twin structures,

    Millwater, H., Ocampo, J., and Crosby, N., "Probabilistic methods for risk assessment of airframe digital twin structures," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 221, 2019, pp. 106674

    2019

  4. [12]

    Uncertainty quantification: theory, implementation, and applications,

    Smith, R.C., "Uncertainty quantification: theory, implementation, and applications," SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2014, 2014,

    2014

  5. [13]

    A Probabilistic Fatigue Life Prediction for Adhesively Bonded Joints via ANNs -based Hybrid Model,

    Lyathakula, K.R., and Yuan, F.G., "A Probabilistic Fatigue Life Prediction for Adhesively Bonded Joints via ANNs -based Hybrid Model," International Journal of Fatigue, 2021, pp. 106352

    2021

  6. [14]

    Accelerating Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation by differential evolution with self-adaptive randomized subspace sampling,

    Vrugt, J.A., Ter Braak, C., Diks, C., "Accelerating Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation by differential evolution with self-adaptive randomized subspace sampling," International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2009, pp. 273-290

    2009

  7. [15]

    Convergence diagnostics for markov chain monte carlo,

    Roy, V., "Convergence diagnostics for markov chain monte carlo," Annual Review of Statistics and its Application, Vol. 7, 2020, pp. 387-412

    2020

  8. [16]

    Efficient sequential Monte -Carlo samplers for Bayesian inference,

    Nguyen, T.L.T., Septier, F., Peters, G.W., "Efficient sequential Monte -Carlo samplers for Bayesian inference," IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, Vol. 64, No. 5, 2015, pp. 1305 - 1319

    2015

  9. [17]

    Topics in sequential Monte Carlo samplers,

    Peters, G., "Topics in sequential Monte Carlo samplers," Available at SSRN 3785582, 2005,

    2005

  10. [18]

    Sequential Monte Carlo: Enabling Real-time and High-fidelity Prognostics,

    Leser, P.E., Hochhalter, J.D., Warner, J.E., "Sequential Monte Carlo: Enabling Real-time and High-fidelity Prognostics," Annual Conference of the PHM Society, Vol. 10, 2018,

    2018

  11. [19]

    Scalable and portable computational framework enabling online probabilistic remaining useful life (RUL) estimation,

    Lyathakula, K.R., and Yuan, F., "Scalable and portable computational framework enabling online probabilistic remaining useful life (RUL) estimation," Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 181, 2023, pp. 103461

    2023

  12. [20]

    Probabilistic Fatigue Life Prediction and Damage Prognostics of Adhesively Bonded Joints via ANNs-based Hybrid Model,

    Lyathakula, K.R., "Probabilistic Fatigue Life Prediction and Damage Prognostics of Adhesively Bonded Joints via ANNs-based Hybrid Model," NCSU Dissertation, 2021,

    2021

  13. [21]

    Surrogate modeling of 3D crack growth,

    Hombal, V.K., and Mahadevan, S., "Surrogate modeling of 3D crack growth," International Journal of Fatigue, Vol. 47, 2013, pp. 90-99

    2013

  14. [22]

    Comparison of various surrogate models to predict stress intensity factor of a crack propagating in offshore piping,

    Keprate, A., Chandima Ratnayake, R.M., and Sankararaman, S., "Comparison of various surrogate models to predict stress intensity factor of a crack propagating in offshore piping," Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 6, 2017,

    2017

  15. [23]

    An adaptive Metropolis algorithm,

    Haario, H., Saksman, E., and Tamminen, J., "An adaptive Metropolis algorithm," Bernoulli, 2001, pp. 223-242

    2001

  16. [24]

    IoT and Cloud computing issues, challenges and opportunities: A review,

    Sadeeq, M.M., Abdulkareem, N.M., Zeebaree, S.R., "IoT and Cloud computing issues, challenges and opportunities: A review," Qubahan Academic Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2021, pp. 1- 7

    2021

  17. [25]

    Cloud computing characteristics and services: a brief review,

    Rashid, A., and Chaturvedi, A., "Cloud computing characteristics and services: a brief review," International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2019, pp. 421-426

    2019

  18. [26]

    Cloud computing in construction industry: Use cases, benefits and challenges,

    Bello, S.A., Oyedele, L.O., Akinade, O.O., "Cloud computing in construction industry: Use cases, benefits and challenges," Automation in Construction, Vol. 122, 2021, pp. 103441

    2021

  19. [27]

    Modelling fatigue damage in adhesively bonded joints,

    Khoramishad, H., "Modelling fatigue damage in adhesively bonded joints," University of Surrey (United Kingdom), 2010,

    2010

  20. [28]

    Surrogate modeling: tricks that endured the test of time and some recent developments,

    Viana, F.A., Gogu, C., and Goel, T., "Surrogate modeling: tricks that endured the test of time and some recent developments," Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 64, No. 5, 2021, pp. 2881-2908

    2021

  21. [29]

    A deep learning approach to estimate stress distribution: a fast and accurate surrogate of finite-element analysis,

    Liang, L., Liu, M., Martin, C., "A deep learning approach to estimate stress distribution: a fast and accurate surrogate of finite-element analysis," Journal of the Royal Society Interface, Vol. 15, No. 138, 2018, pp. 20170844

    2018

  22. [30]

    A finite element-based machine learning approach for modeling the mechanical behavior of the breast tissues under compression in real-time,

    Martínez-Martínez, F., Rupérez-Moreno, M.J., Martínez-Sober, M., "A finite element-based machine learning approach for modeling the mechanical behavior of the breast tissues under compression in real-time," Computers in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 90, 2017, pp. 116-124

    2017

  23. [31]

    Practical options for selecting data-driven or physics-based prognostics algorithms with reviews,

    An, D., Kim, N.H., and Choi, J., "Practical options for selecting data-driven or physics-based prognostics algorithms with reviews," Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 133, 2015, pp. 223-236

    2015

  24. [32]

    A generalised damage model for constant amplitude fatigue loading of adhesively bonded joints,

    Khoramishad, H., Crocombe, A.D., Katnam, K.B., "A generalised damage model for constant amplitude fatigue loading of adhesively bonded joints," International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, Vol. 30, No. 6, 2010, pp. 513-521

    2010

  25. [33]

    Predicting fatigue damage in adhesively bonded joints using a cohesive zone model,

    Khoramishad, H., Crocombe, A.D., Katnam, K.B., "Predicting fatigue damage in adhesively bonded joints using a cohesive zone model," International Journal of Fatigue, Vol. 32, No. 7, 2010, pp. 114`6-1158

    2010

  26. [34]

    Fatigue damage modelling of adhesively bonded joints under variable amplitude loading using a cohesive zone model,

    Khoramishad, H., Crocombe, A.D., Katnam, K.B., "Fatigue damage modelling of adhesively bonded joints under variable amplitude loading using a cohesive zone model," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 78, No. 18, 2011, pp. 3212-3225

    2011

  27. [35]

    Implementation of a probabilistic machine learning strategy for failure predictions of adhesively bonded joints using cohesive zone modeling,

    Freed, Y., Salviato, M., and Zobeiry, N., "Implementation of a probabilistic machine learning strategy for failure predictions of adhesively bonded joints using cohesive zone modeling," International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 2022, pp. 103226

    2022

  28. [36]

    Cohesive Zone Modelling in Adhesively Bonded Joints: Analysis on crack propagation in adhe-sives and adherends,

    Noorman, D.C., "Cohesive Zone Modelling in Adhesively Bonded Joints: Analysis on crack propagation in adhe-sives and adherends," 2014,

    2014

  29. [37]

    Monte Carlo based designs for constrained domains,

    Golchi, S., and Loeppky, J.L., "Monte Carlo based designs for constrained domains," arXiv Preprint arXiv:1512.07328, 2015,

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A review on Amazon web service (AWS), Microsoft azure & Google cloud platform (GCP) services,

    Gupta, B., Mittal, P., and Mufti, T., "A review on Amazon web service (AWS), Microsoft azure & Google cloud platform (GCP) services," Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on ICT for Digital, Smart, and Sustainable Development, ICIDSSD 2020, 27 -28 February 2020, Jam...

    2020

  31. [39]

    Comparison of the IoT platform vendors, microsoft Azure, Amazon web services, and Google cloud, from users’ perspectives,

    Ucuz, D., "Comparison of the IoT platform vendors, microsoft Azure, Amazon web services, and Google cloud, from users’ perspectives," 2020 8th international symposium on digital forensics and security (ISDFS), IEEE, 2020, pp. 1-4

    2020

  32. [40]

    Building machine learning and deep learning models on Google cloud platform,

    Bisong, E., "Building machine learning and deep learning models on Google cloud platform," Springer, 2019,

    2019

  33. [41]

    Amazon Web Services (AWS)–an overview of the on-demand cloud computing platform,

    Hashemipour, S., and Ali, M., "Amazon Web Services (AWS)–an overview of the on-demand cloud computing platform," Emerging Technologies in Computing: Third EAI International Conference, iCETiC 2020, London, UK, August 19–20, 2020, Proceedings 3, Springer, 2020, pp. 40-47

    2020

  34. [42]

    Thermal buckling of curvilinearly stiffened laminated composite plates with cutouts using isogeometric analysis

    Devarajan, Balakrishnan, and Rakesh K. Kapania. "Thermal buckling of curvilinearly stiffened laminated composite plates with cutouts using isogeometric analysis." Composite Structures 238 (2020): 111881

    2020

  35. [43]

    Analyzing thermal buckling in curvilinearly stiffened composite plates with arbitrary shaped cutouts using isogeometric level set method

    Devarajan, Balakrishnan, and Rakesh K. Kapania. "Analyzing thermal buckling in curvilinearly stiffened composite plates with arbitrary shaped cutouts using isogeometric level set method." Aerospace Science and Technology 121 (2022): 107350

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.